CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Thursday stayed an order of a single judge, which directed the state government to grant exemption from entertainment tax for Tamil movie titled “Gethu”, starring Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of DMK treasurer M. K. Stalin, from the date of release (January 14, 2016).
A Division Bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran granted the interim stay and posted for March 21, further hearing of an appeal filed by the state government, which sought to set aside the order of a single judge, dated February 5.
In its appeal, the government contended that the single judge ought to have appreciated the specific contentions of the appellant that the viewing committee has observed that the word “Gethu” was not a Tamil word taking that pronunciation from the enclosures of the Red Giant’s application accompanied by the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification and the Red Giant’s covering letter.
Thus, the viewing committee decided that the Tamil word, with the pronunciation “Gethu” was not a Tamil word.
The single judge ought to have appreciated that two different pronunciations of the same Tamil word has two different meanings and that the context of the usage was significant to decide as to which of the pronunciation has to be taken into account.
Though phonetically, two different words, namely “Gethu” and Kethu” have same syllable in Tamil language, they have different pronunciations and two different meanings.
The word “Gethu” was colloquially used only in part of Chennai district, to refer to ‘pride’ and ‘forcefulness’. However, there was no such word syllable “Gethu” in the University of Madras dictionary.
Further, the word “Gethu” has its origin from Kanada language. Thus, the conclusion of the viewing committee was fully justified and the same cannot be termed improper, the government said.
Examine in situ rehab of encroachers: HC
The Madras high court has asked the state government to examine the aspect of in situ rehabilitation (providing plot in a nearby area where encroachers were originally located) of encroachers, as their occupation and education make them come back to the original area.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M. M. Sundresh disposed of a PIL from T. K. Shanmugam, secretary, CPI (M) North Chennai district, which sought to direct the authorities to issue patta and regularise encroachments in Menambedu and Korattur villages in Ambattur Taluk.
The judges said it was not in dispute that the area in question was a water area. In view of the Full Bench judgment of the court in this very case, the relief has worked itself out as there cannot be any regularisation of such encroachments. On the other hand, the encroachments would have to be removed.
N. G. R. Prasad, petitioner’s counsel, contended that the authorities should consider the case of the petitioner for rehabilitation and that too not in far away area.
“The aforesaid is a policy decision. We may, however, state that the schemes where persons are taken completely outside from original inhabitation often do not work out because the beneficiaries give away/sell their rights in such rehabilitation places to somehow come near the area where they were originally located. It is, this problem, which has been debated and in many places now, the process of in situ development and rehabilitation was being thought of. This emanates from the fact that their occupation which lasted number of years, the place of work, education etc., make the people to come back to the area in question. Such in situ rehabilitation often works out better as a solution, of course, subject to availability of plots. We do believe that this is an aspect which should be examined by the state government”, the court said.
